Bible Commentaries
Romans 1

Verse 1

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS Introduction

Theme— The Christian doctrine of justification (= salvation) is generally regarded as the main doctrinal subject of Rom. The text which best expresses this predominant idea Isaiah 1:16 f. ’The Gospel . . . is a power of God bringing salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first but no less to the Greek. For therein a d??a??s??ð ?e??+? is revealed out of faith’. The translations of the characteristic d??a??s??ð ?e??+? differ: the justice of God, DV; the justness of God, WV; God’s way of justifying us, KNT; the righteousness of God, AV; a righteousness of God, RV; cf. § 846e. There is a simpler statement of this theme or doctrine by St Augustine, PL 35, 2087 f.: ’Hoc ergo docere intendit, omnibus venisse gratiam Evangelii Domini nostri Jesu Christi’ = he (Paul) intended to teach that the grace of the Gospel of Jesus Christ had come for all. It is true, that St Augustine by speaking of grace instead of justice (= justness) changed St Paul’s terminology. But it is equally true, that justifying grace (= sanctifying grace) has become the Catholic term for what is the predominant idea of Rom. Hence it may simplify the understanding of Rom for a Catholic reader if he keeps to the term with which he is familiar. The part of Rom which deals directly with this main theme of salvation or justifying grace Isaiah 1:18-; Isaiah 8:39; cf. § 846b.

In addition to this main doctrinal theme of Rom there is a second major doctrinal topic: the defence of the new Christian doctrine of salvation against the objections from Israel, the chosen people of old (= the church of old) which rejected that doctrine as an innovation contradictory to the Established Torah (= the Law of Moses). This secondary theme of Rom is, however, so closely connected with the first that it may well be called a corollary to it. It is dealt with mainly in chh 9-11. But there are many passing references to it in the earlier parts of the epistle, e.g. 7:1-6; cf. Lagrange XXXIX ff. In any case, it would be a mistake to regard Rom as a treatise of one or two doctrines only. As in all his letters so in Rom Paul touches upon many topics.

Plan— There is a plan of Rom in every commentary and in every manual of NT introduction; e.g.* M. E. Bengel , Gnomon NT, 1862, 494 (on 1:16); * J. B. Lightfoot , Notes on the Epistles of S. Paul, 1895, 239-43; SH XLVII-L; Prat I 482-9; Boylan XXIIIXXXI; Gut 375-8. To understand the differences in the various plans it must be remembered that a letter is not meant to be a well ordered treatise. The sequence of thought in a letter is determined by the momentary associations of ideas rather than by the strict rules of logic or rhetoric. Hence the allocation of details in the analysis of a longer letter is often bound to be subjective. The main divisions in Rom are, however, clearly marked.

A. 1:1-17 INTRODUCTION.

B. 1:18-11:36 THE DOCTRINAL SECTION. I. 1:18-3:20 The need for the salvation of the Gospel.

II. 3:21-4:25 The way to this salvation.

III. 5:1-8:39 Effects of this salvation: (1) 5:1-21 Hope of eternal glorification, (2) 6:1-23 A complete break with sin, (3) 7:1-25 Christ the New Law, (4) 8:1-39 The indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

IV. 9:1-11:36 The present exclusion of Israel from this salvation: (1) 9:1-29 The divine attributes of faithfulness and justice are defended, (2) 9:30-10:21 Israel’s fault is exposed, (3) 11:1-36 Several other aspects of the problem of Israel’s present exclusion from the salvation of the Gospel are mentioned.

C. 12:1-15:13 THE MORAL SECTION., I. 13:1-13:14 General exhortations. II. 14:1-15:13 Exhortations to the Weak and the Strong in Rome.

D. 15:14-16:27 CONCLUSION. Authenticity— According to 1:1-7 Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, is the author of this epistle. The literal truth of this statement is beyond any reasonable doubt. On the external evidence see SH LXXIV-LXXXIV; Lusseau-Collomb, Manuel d’Etudes bibliques V 1 ( 1938) 523 f. The internal evidence for the authenticity argues from the agreement of Rom with the genuine Pauline epistles in contents and form. Here the agreement with Gal is to be stressed in particular. On objections against the authenticity of Rom see Lagrange LXI f.; Gut 378, 1.

In connexion with the authenticity of Rom the qestion has been raised, how much of the wording of the letter may be due to Tertius, who in 16:22 signs as the Apostle’s amanuensis. This question is incapable of a conclusive answer. But it would seem safe to argue that the theological depth of the epistle, the agreement with Gal, and the numerous unfinished sentences speak decisively against any considerable share of Tertius in the composition of Rom; cf.* O. Roller, Das Formular der Paul. Briefe, 1933, 22.

Purpose— The first purpose of the Apostle must have been to expound in form of instructions and exhortations the theme which has been explained above. The second object of the Apostle in writing this letter evidently was his intention to prepare for a visit to Rome on his journey to Spain, cf. 1:10-15; 15:22-33; Acts 19:21.

But what was St Paul’s purpose in going to Rome? He says himself in 15:20 f. and 2 Corinthians 10:13-16 that it is against his principles to build upon another man’s foundation. According to this principle there was no work for him to do at Rome. For as his own letter proves, Rome already had a flourishing Christian community. Hence St Paul’s visit to Rome cannot be said to have been necessary for the expansion of Christianity. The most natural answer would seem to be that it was Rome, the capital of the Empire, which attracted Paul, the Roman citizen, cf.* E. L. Hicks, Studia Biblica IV ( 1896) 11. Another plausible explanation is that it was to visit his many personal friends among the Christians of Rome, cf. ch 16.

Much more difficult is the question, why did St Paul write such an elaborate letter to Rome? Surely there was no need for 7,101 words to prepare for a fortnight’s stay with his friends at Rome on his journey to Spain; cf. § 863a-b. * F. Godet, Com. on Romans, Engl. Tr. I ( 1890) 80-99, discusses at length the numerous answers that have been given to this question. The explanation which recommends itself as the most natural is that which points out two reasons for the extraordinary length and depth of this epistle: (1) the practical importance of the subject of justification (= salvation) by faith in Jesus Christ at the time, see Gal and note the absence of other fundamental Christian doctrines; (2) the importance of the church of Rome; cf. the privileged position of the church of Jerusalem, Galatians 1:18 f.; 2:1-10; 2 Corinthians 8:1-2Co_9:15; Acts 9:26-28; Acts 11:27-30; Acts 15:1-35; Acts 18:22; Acts 20:16; Acts 21:13. Why St Paul should have considered the church of Rome as especially important is a question which has been answered differently. The answer that the church of Rome enjoyed a privileged position through being St Peter’s special of activity is as reasonable a conjecture as any other that has been put forward, cf.Galatians 1:18; 2:1-10; Acts 15:7; Boylan IX f.

Date— Rom was probably written in the first three months of a.d. 58. To begin with it seems certain from 15:25-28 that Rom was written in the winter months preceding the collection journey referred to in 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Cor 8; 9; Acts 19:21-21:19; 24:17. There is less certainty as regards the year. It depends on the year assigned to St Paul’s imprisonment at Caesarea, Acts 23:23-35; Acts 24:1-26 which was two years before the recall of Felix and the arrival of Porcius Festus as procurator or Judaea, Acts 24:27. The year of this political event however is disputed; various calculations have led to a.d. 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, the last being the date most commonly held, cf. Prat I 401-404; *Schürer I ( 1901) 577 ff. For a different method of dating Rom see Lagrange XIX. In any case Rom cannot be dated later than a.d. 58 or 59. The religious importance of this date lies in the theological depth and thoroughness here displayed so soon after our Lord’s Ascension.

Place of Composition— Corinth is generally regarded as the place where Rom was written. There is no explicit statement in the epistle to that effect. But apart from the date, the recommendation of Phoebe (16:1 f.) points to Corinth; and so does the subscription in many MSS, cf.* Tischendorf, NT II ( 18728) 457.

The Addressees— That this epistle was addressed to the Christians of Rome in accordance with 1:6 is generally admitted. What is most disputed with regard to the addressees is the question whether the convertsf rom Judaism or from paganism were in the majority. Either possibility has been defended. The result of the controversy which began with * F. C. Baur (d. 1860) seems to be a compromise. In the church of Rome Israelite and Gentile met as in most early Christian communities outside Palestine. There were differences and difficulties between them and dangers of local disturbances, but they were such as must have existed everywhere under similar circumstances at that time. How serious such local disturbances could become Paul knew from what had happened in Galatia, cf. Gal. This may have caused him to take up the question of the Mosaic Law so thoroughly in Rom. But even Gal apart, the Christian attitude to the Mosaic Law (= the OT) is a fundamental question of Christian doctrine and that not only for Israelitish Christians but also for Gentile Christians. It deserves therefore at all times such a thorough treatment as we have in Rom quite irrespective of any immediate controversial issues.

A further point that may be mentioned concerning the addressees of Rom is their social status. There is no direct evidence on this question. But the more the poverty of the early Christians of Rome is stressed in accordance with the conditions of the majority of the Jews at Rome (cf. SH XXIV) and in analogy with what we know from other early Christian communities (cf.1 Corinthians 1:26) the more amazing is the theological interest and understanding which St Paul showed that he expected from them by writing such a letter.

Who was the Founder of the Church of Rome?— That Paul was not the founder of the Church of Rome follows clearly from 1:13; 15:19. But so far it is impossible to answer this question positively, because the necessary historical evidence is missing. There are however two conjectures which can claim some probability. (1) The beginning of Christianity at Rome need not be the work of one founder. Rome was a general meetingplace for all nationalities and creeds in the Roman empire, and so it is quite likely that very soon Christians also met there and began to spread the Gospel. That they were Jewish Christians is possible but not necessary; it has been inferred from the well-known custom that the early Christian missionaries began preaching the Gospel in the Synagogue wherever this opportunity existed. The common reference to Acts 2:10 in support of this conjecture, however, is not to the point, because this reference speaks of Jews from Rome who were then living at Jerusalem, cf.Acts 2:5. (2) It may be that St Peter was the founder of the church of Rome. But the available historical evidence only proves Peter’s activity and death at Rome, cf. U. Holzmeister, Com. in Epistulas SS Petri et Iudae, CSS, 1937, 40-71. At all events Peter was not at Rome when Paul wrote this letter. Otherwise there would be some reference to him in ch 16. Such a temporary absence of Peter from one of his foundations or special fields of activity is no more difficult to understand than the absence of Paul from the Pauline churches, e.g. Corinth or Ephesus.

The Text— For a good introduction to the critical problems of the text see Lietzmann 1-18. The standard edition of the Greek text is * H. v. Soden, Die Schriften des NT, Text und Apparat, 1913. This has been used for the present commentary. For a select list of textual variants see * Westcott-Hort, The NT II ( 1882) 108-14. The standard edition of the Vg text is * J. Wordsworth and * H. J. White, Novum Testamentum . . . II 1, Oxford, 1913. The variants of the Vg from the Greek text are noted in the commentaries of Cornely, Lagrange, and Boylan.

Integrity— If allowance be made for accidental textual variants, such as we find in the MSS of every ancient text, only the conclusion of Rom is beset by somewhat more serious difficulties. No less than six different conclusions can be traced in the MSS. They are:

1. 14:23 om. 15:1-16:27; 2. 14:23; 16:20b = 16:24 om. 15:1-16:27; 3. 14:23; 16:25-27 om. 15:1-16:27; 4. 14:23; 16:25-27; 15:1-16:24; 5. 14:23; 15:1-16:27; 6. 14:23; 16:25-27; 15:1-16:24; 16:25-27.

The respective MS evidence can be found in the critical editions of the text and in the larger commentaries; see § 863l. On the whole the case seems to be far from clear. But there is agreement on the following points: (1) The best attested text is nr 5 = Romans 14:23; Romans 15:1-; Romans 16:27; so ? BC etc.; bo, sah; vet lat, Vg; pesh. (2) Marcion was the first to omit 15:116:27, partly because the contents contradicted his doctrine, 15:1-13; partly because they were of no doctrinal interest, 15:14-16:27. (3) The omission of 15:1-16:27 in some MSS may be due partly to the influence of Marcion, partly to the influence of church lectionaries. The contents of 15:4-16:27 were evidently not suitable for reading in church. (4) The theory that Rom 16 is a fragment of a letter addressed not to Rome but to Ephesus can quote no external evidence in its favour. On the internal evidence alleged cf. § 863g. On the whole question see SH LXXXIXXCVIII; R. Schumacher, Die beiden letzten Kapitel des Röm, NtAbh, 14, 4 ( 1929); Lietzmann 130 f.

Verses 2-32

I 1-7 The Opening Saiutation— also called superscription, inscription, prescript. St Paul begins his letter according to contemporary Jewish, Greek and Roman custom with the threefold statement of sender, addressee and greetings. Examples which illustrate this convention of ancient letter-writing are plentiful. A very similar formula is still used in many papal and episcopal encyclicals. For a different opening of a letter see the seven letters in Apoc 2-3.

The most obvious characteristic of the salutation in Romans 1:1-7 is its length and periodic style. The conventional superscription was short and formal; see James 1:1 which of all letters in the NT best preserves the stereotyped formula of an ancient letter. St Paul was the first as far as we know to break away from the traditional formula by expanding it and filling it with Christian ideas; cf. the beginning of Gal; 1 Cor; Philm; Tit. But Romans 1:1-7 is the longest and most elaborate of all. Its structure is as follows:

I. Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for a GOSPEL FROM GOD: 1. which he had promised before through his prophets in Holy Writ,

2. which is concerning HIS SON, Jesus Christ, our Lord: a. who was born from the family of David according to the flesh, b. who was manifested as ’Son of God in Power’ according to his holy Spirit from the time of his resurrection from the dead, c. through whom we have received the GRACE OF THE APOSTOLATE, that for the glory of his name we should win all nations unto obedience of faith, among whom are ye also, being the called of Jesus Christ:

II. to all who are in Rome, beloved of God, Saints by his call,

III. grace to you and peace from God, our father, and From the Lord Jesus Christ. For a more elaborate analysis see Prat II 425.

The practical importance of Romans 1:1-7 lies in its doctrinal content. Nearly all the prominent articles of the early Christian faith are gathered together here in one sentence: (1) the Gospel as the fulfilment of the OT, 2; (2) the descent of the Messias from the family of David, 3; (3) the glorification of Christ, 4; (4) the origin, purpose and range of Paul’s apostolate, 1, 5, 6. On the theological terminology in this paragraph see SH 17

1. d??+???? I. X. = ’slave of Jesus Christ’: contains an important confession of Christian faith. The phrase is not found in the Gospels (contrast John 15:15) but occurs frequently in the Pauline and Catholic epistles. All agree that it expresses the Apostle’s allegiance to Christ. But opinions differ concerning the definition of this allegiance. The main explanations are: (1) = slave or bondman of Jesus Christ, cf.1 Corinthians 7:22; i.e. Paul who claimed his rights as a Roman citizen before the Roman authorities, Acts 16:37; Acts 22:25; Acts 25:10, regarded himself as a slave of Christ. Many commentators insist with great earnestness on this literal translation. (2) = servant or minister of Jesus. This interpretation avoids the idea of slavery by explaining the phrase as an hyperbole. As such it would be in accordance with the oriental convention of calling even high officials ’slaves’ with reference to their higher authorities, esp. the king; cf.4 Kg 5:6; Cowley, Aram. Pap. 1923, nr 17, 30, 31, 37, 38, 39, 54. This explanation would come very near the idea expressed in John 15:15 and could be supported by the stress which St Paul lays on his apostolic authority in this context. ???+???? would become synonymous in the NT with d???????, ?e??p??, ???ó??µ??, ?pð??tð? which are all different words for servant or minister. (3) = worshipper of Jesus Christ. This meaning is based on the usage in which ’servant of God’ is commonly used for those whose life is dedicated to the worship and service of God; e.g. Abraham, Psalms 104:6, Psalms 104:42; Moses, Joshua 14:7; Joshua 14:3 Kg 8:53; 4 Kg 18:12; Nehemiah 9:14; Psalms 104:26; Apoc 15:3; Josue, Joshua 24:29; Judges 2:8; Job, Job 1:8; Job 2:3; Job 42:8; David, Jeremiah 33:21 ff.; Ez 34:23; 37:24; Psalms 17:1; Psalms 35:1; Psalms 77:70; Psalms 88:1, Psalms 88:21; Eliacim, Isaiah 22:20; Zorobabel, Ag 2:24; Daniel, Daniel 6:20; the OT prophets, Amos 3:7; Daniel 9:6, Daniel 9:10; Jeremiah 7:25; Esd 9:11; he just = saints of the OT, Pss 33:23; 68:37; 101:15; 115:16; 118:125; 122:2; 142:2, 12; cf. also Luke 1:38; Luke 2:29. The doctrinal significance of this explanation lies in the implicit confession of our Lord’s divinity. As the OT saints were called servants of God’ so Paul deliberately called himself servant of Jesus Christ.’ (4) = freedman of Jesus Christ. This explanation is derived from the Hellenistic custom of manumission. A slave was freed in a temple by a legal transaction by which his former master transferred his right over him to the God of the temple, a price of redemption being paid symbolically by the God to the former master. Thereafter the former slave was a freedman. In view of this custom Paul could call himself the slave of Christ to signify that he had been bought free (= redeemed) through Jesus Christ from his former master Sin or Satan; cf.* A. Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, 19234, Engl. Tr. 1927, 319-30. This explanation draws out Paul’s belief in the divinity of Christ even more forcibly than the previous one; and it would also help to explain the NT term for ’redemption’. Of these four explanations the third is the most common.

2-4 describe in a parenthesis the Gospel the preaching of which St Paul has just proclaimed to be his vocation. First, it is a Gospel promised in the Bible long ago, 2; secondly, its central figure is Jesus Christ, 3-4. What is said of Christ in 3-4 can be summarized under two points: (1) Jesus Christ, the son of David; (2) Jesus Christ, the son of God. 3. ’from the family of David according to the flesh’: for the descent of the Messias from the house of David see 2 Samuel 7:12-16; Psalms 88:36 f.; Isaiah 9:6 f.; Jeremiah 23:5 f.; 33:15-17, 26; Amos 9:11; Ps of Salom 17:23. For the importance of this doctrine in in the. NT cf.Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:6, Matthew 1:20; Matthew 9:27; Matthew 12:23; Matthew 15:22; Matthew 20:30 f.; 21:9, 15; 22:41-46; Luke 1:27, Luke 1:32, Luke 1:69; Luke 2:4, Luke 2:11; John 7:42; Acts 13:23; Romans 9:5; Romans 15:8; 2 Timothy 2:8. Paul however does not enter into a discussion of the question how our Lord’s origin from the house of David can be proved; whether it is to be traced through the family tree of our Lady, or of St Joseph or of both. He evidently takes the fact for certain and is unaware of anybody questioning it. 4 is an important proof-text for the divinity of Christ. But there is no agreement as to the structure of the sentence. The main possible interpretations are: (1) Jesus Christ was manifested (i.e. before men) as Son of God by his miraculous power, his infinite sanctity, and by his resurrection; cf. footnote in DV; (2) Jesus Christ was manifested as ’Son of God in Power’ in accordance with his holy spirit (his sanctity = his divine nature) from the time of (or by means of) his resurrection. This latter explanation is recommended by the threefold parallelism between v 3 and v 4: made . . . son . . . according to. For details see larger commentaries, e.g. Cornely, 38-46; differently Boylan 2-4.

T??+? ???s???t?? ????+? t??+? ?e??+? ?? d???µe?= qui praedestinatus est Filius Dei in virtute, Vg; who was predestinated the Son of God in power, DV; by an act of power . . . marked out Son of God, WV. The text of Vg followed by DV is unfortunate in that it adds to the verb the preposition ’prae’: ’prae-destinatus, pre-destinated. The most natural explanation of this Latin addition is to assume with St Jerome on Ephesians 1:5 ( PL26, 478) that the Latin usage of the time made no clear distinction between destinare and praedestinare, cf. Lagrange, Zahn. Be this as it may, St Augustine, De praedestinatione sanctorum15, 31 ( PL44, 982) seized on this text; and mediaeval theology on the strength of it developed a discussion ’de praedestinatione Jesu Christi’, cf. Aquin., ST III q 24 a 1.2. To assess the theological value of this discussion belongs to dogma. The historical exegesis of Romans 1:4 must keep to the Greek text which can be translated: established, set up, constituted, declared, marked out, manifested, or shown as the Son of God in Power. The choice between these possibilities is difficult. What must be avoided is Adoptianism saying that Christ became Son of God through the resurrection.

’Son of God in Power’: after describing in 3 the Son of God ’in weakness’, Philippians 2:6 f., St Paul now raises his eyes to Jesus Christ in glory, power and majesty, seated at the right hand of the Father; cf. Matthew 24:30 = Mark 13:26 = Luke 21:27; Matthew 26:64 = Luke 22:69; Matthew 28:18; Mark 9:1-7; Mark 12:36; Mark 16:19; Acts 2:33; Acts 7:55 f.; Romans 8:34; 1 Corinthians 15:43; 2 Corinthians 5:16; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1; Colossians 3:1; Tim 3:16; Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 8:1; Hebrews 10:12; Hebrews 12:2; 1 Peter 3:22; Apoc 3:21; 5:12. So among modern Catholic commentators Cornely, Lagrange; for a list of others see Cornely 39; cf. also commentaries to Mark 16:19 and to the 6th article of the Apostles’ Creed. According to another possible translation of the text ’in power’ is to be connected with the verb: Jesus Christ was shown to be Son of God ’by power’ = by his miracles. These miracles then can be the miracles worked by him and recorded in the four Gospels; or the miracles worked in his name by the Apostles after his resurrection and recorded in Acts; or the one great miracle of his resurrection, so WV, Boylan.

Kat? p?e?+?µa ????s??ð? = secundum spiritum sanctificationis, Vg; according to the spirit of sanctification, DV; in accordance with the holiness of his spirit, WV. This phrase is difficult being unique in the NT and peculiar in itself. The simplest explanation seems to be to understand it of Christ’s spiritual being in deliberate contrast to his physical being in 3. Accordins to his physical being = ’according to the flesh’, Christ was the son of David, 3; according to his spiritual being = ’according to his spirit distinguished by holiness’, Christ has been shown to be the Son of God in Power from the day of his resurrection (or by the one great sign of his resurrection); cf.John 3:34; John 8:46; Romans 8:11; Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 Peter 3:18. So Comely 29 ff. Influenced by the more developed doctrine of later cent. we today may feel inclined to substitute for Paul’s distinction of ’flesh and spirit’ a phrase referring to Christ’s’ human and divine nature’. But this would be reading later definitions into the text of St Paul. For an altogether different interpretation see Boylan.

5. ’Unto obedience of faith’: can mean (1) obedience to the doctrines of the Christian faith, (2) obedience to God by faith. 7a. ’Called to be saints’ = saints by his call, WV. The Apostle is not implying that the Christians of Rome were saints because of extraordinary virtue. What he has in mind is that God has called (= chosen) them to be set apart for him in a special way, cf. ’called to be an Apostle’ in v 1. They were called by God not because they were saints in their lives already, but they were saints = consecrated to God, since they had been called by him (Augustine). In this sense ’saints’ is a common name for the Christians in St Paul’s epistles, Romans 8:27; Romans 12:13; Romans 15:25, Romans 15:31; Romans 16:2, Romans 16:15; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 1 Corinthians 6:1 f.; 14:33; 16:1, 15; 2 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 8:4; 2 Corinthians 9:1, 2 Corinthians 9:12; 2 Corinthians 13:12; Ephesians 1:1; Ephesians 2:19, etc. The origin of this idea is to be found in the OT usage in which ’saints’ refers to Israel as God’s chosen people, cf.Exodus 22:31; Leviticus 11:44; Leviticus 19:2; Leviticus 20:7; Deuteronomy 7:6; Deuteronomy 14:21; Deuteronomy 16:19; Deuteronomy 28:9, etc. 7b ends the prescript with greetings as was customary. But in the wording of his greetings Paul keeps neither to the Jewish nor to the Greek custom. The Jewish form was šalôm = peace (cf. SB I 380-5), the Greek ?aí?e?? (cf.James 1:1). Paul instead used the formula ????? ?aì e????ð except in 1 and 2 Tim. As to the meaning of this formula there are two main interpretations. (1) It can be taken as uniting the Jewish and the Greek formulas. Then it has to be translated ’greetings and peace (= happiness)’ = all best wishes; (2) The two nouns can be taken in their specific Christian sense, in which case the translation would be ’the race of God and Christ (cf.Romans 3:24; Ephesians 2:5) and the peace of God and Christ (cf.John 14:27; Romans 5:1) be with you’. This second explanation is more in the spirit of St Paul. See Estius.

8-17 Introduction— In accordance with the usage of ancient letter-writing the salutation is followed by an introductory paragraph enlarging on the Apostle’s interest in those to whom he is writing. He praises the good repute of their faith, 8; he assures them of his prayers, 9; and finally expresses his desire to visit them and the hope that his visit will be for their mutual edification and for the benefit of the Gospel. The whole paragraph may well be called a captatio benevolentiae. The only letters of St Paul in which a similar introduction is wanting are Gal; 1 Tim; Tit; cf.* P. Wend land , Die urchristl. Literaturformen 1912, 413 f.

St Paul’s intention to visit the flourishing mission in Rome raises the question, how this present plan can be reconciled with his principle not to build on another Apostle’s foundations, but to preach the Gospel only where Christ was still unknown, Romans 15:20 f.; 2 Corinthians 10:15 f.; cf. § 844e.

16-17 The Theme of the Epistle— From the literary point of view these two verses clearly belong to the introduction, 8-17, since they explain Paul’s statement in the previous sentence, 15, 16a, that the delay of his visit to Rome is not due either to fear or to shame. On the other hand, 16 f. are commonly set apart as a special paragraph because they contain the main thesis of the epistle. The points of this thesis are: (1) in the Christian Gospel God offers to men a real salvation; (2) this salvation is to be obtained by means of faith; (3) this salvation through faith is offered to all men without any of the traditional distinctions between races and cultures; (4) this salvation is not an innovation that contradicts but is in full agreement with what is written in the OT. It is impossible to sound the depth of these thoughts in one reading or in a short explanation. A brief exposition of the principal terms and phrases, however, may be useful.

16. ’The Gospel a power of God for salvation’; a?tð?ía = salvation is one of the most comprehensive terms used in the NT to describe the whole purpose of the Incarnation, or to cover the whole range of Christ’s mission on earth. Its wide meaning may be gathered from the following list of synonymous or similar terms in the NT: ???asµó? sanctification; ??a?aí??s?? renovation, renewal; ??a?e?a?a???+?? to reestablish, to bring to a head (in Christ); ?p???t??s?? redemption; ???a?sía incorruption; ßas??eía tO+?????a??+??, t??+? ?e??+? kingdom of heaven, of God; d??a??s??ð justice, justness, righteousness; dó?a glory; e?+~?a? ?? X??st?+? to be in Christ = union with Christ; e????ð peace; ??? (a??????) life (everlasting); ??ast????? propitiation; ?ata??a?? reconciliation; pa????esía regeneration; ????? grace. Every attempt to define salvation has to start from the root-meaning: deliverance, safety, security, well-being. This deliverance can be of a temporal as well as of a spiritual character. Here Paul is evidently thinking of deliverance in the religious or spiritual sense. But this can again be understood negatively, as deliverance from the death of sin; or positively, as the imparting of a new spiritual life. In either case the deliverance can be past, present or future. Thus, we have been saved through the Incarnation, Titus 3:4 f.; Ephesians 2:8; we are being saved through Christ in us, 1 Corinthians 1:18; we hope that we shall be saved at the resurrection from the dead on the Last Day, Romans 10:1; Romans 13:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:8 f.; Philippians 1:19; Philippians 2:12. The appeal which the word salvation had for Paul’s readers can be gathered from its frequency in the OT and in the Graeco-Roman usage of the time. Among the many synonyms for deliverance in the OT (cf. HRCS II 1328; HDB IV 357) s?tð?ía had become more and more a technical term for the salvation expected from the Messias, so that Messias and Saviour could be used interchangeably, cf.Matthew 1:21. In the Graeco-Roman world ’the cry for salvation was loud, persistent, and universal’. Heroes and kings as well as gods were given the title Saviour and the mystery religions developed elaborate theories and rituals of salvation under the patronage of several oriental deities; cf.* S. Angus, The Mystery Religions and Christianity, 1925, 225-30. To bring out the main differences between the Christian doctrine of salvation and that of the pagan cults, stress is to be laid (1) on the historical character of Christ the Redeemer, and (2) on the moral obligations of the Christian faith, cf. Prat II 385-90.

’To everyone that believeth’; the emphasis seems to lie on the verb, because of the parallelism with 17b. Faith is the one condition which man has to fulfil, if he wants to obtain the salvation of the Gospel. Without faith neither the privileges of Israel nor the wisdom of the Greeks are of any avail; cf. 1:17b; 5:1; Galatians 3:8; John 3:36; John 7:38; Council of Trent, sess VI cap 8 (Dz 801) ’fides est humanae salutis initium, fundamentum et radix omnis iustificationis, sine qua impossibile est placere Deo (Hebrews 11:6) et ad filiorum eius consortium pervenire’ = Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification; without which (sc. faith) it is impossible to please God and to obtain fellowship with his sons. On the fundamental necessity of faith for salvation, here clearly stated by St Paul, all Christian theology agrees. The differences of opinion begin with the definition of this faith. A comprehensive Catholic definition of faith was given by the Vatican Council, sess III cap 3 (Dz 1789) ’Fidem . . . virtutem csse supernaturalem, qua, Dei aspirante et adiuvante gratia, ab eo revelata vera esse credimus, non propter intrinsecam rerum veritatern naturali rationis lumine perspectam sed propter auctoritatem ipsius Dei revelantis, qui nec falli nec fallere potest’ = Faith . . . is the supernatural virtue by which . . . we believe that what has been revealed by God is true, because . . . of the authority of God himself, who revealed it . . .’. Faith then is man’s assent to truths revealed. This faith is called theological or dogmatic faith. All definitions of faith in the original Protestant sense are based on the translation of píst?? as confidence, trust. And the confidence is understood as trust in God’s mercy on account of Christ’s redemption. Trust and you will be saved. This faith is commonly referred to as fides fiducialis. For its modification by the Council of Trent see Dz 802, 822. The absence of any reference to sacraments and good works in Paul’s thesis in 16 f. has often been noticed. The omission causes no difficulty if faith be understood in the sense of dogmatic faith, which accepts all the doctrines of the Gospel as true and obeys all its precepts as divine commandments. For in this faith sacraments and good works are included, cf. Prat II 254-74; 311-51.

17a. d??a??s??ð ?e??+? = iustitia Dei, Vg; the justice of God, DV, Boylan; the righteousness of God, AV; a righteousness of God, RV; the justness of God, WV; God’s way of justifying us, KNT. The meaning of the term ’justice of God’ here used by St Paul is ambiguous. Taken by itself it can mean (1) an attribute of God: the justice which is in God, the justice which God possesses and practises as judge, commonly called the distributive or vindictive justice of God; (2) an attribute of man: the justice which is in man but from God, i.e. the justice, goodness or perfection which man possesses as a gift from God. This is the same quality which we generally call justifying or sanctifying grace. Generally speaking the first of these two meanings is grammatically the more common and. the more natural, but the second is possible too, and the context can make its acceptance necessary, cf.Matthew 6:33; Romans 10:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 3:9. The meaning of ’justice of God’ here is still disputed, cf. Prat II 459 f. To understand it of the justice which is in God, is so natural an explanation from the philological point of view, and so strongly supported by the corresponding ’wrath of God’ in 18, that it will probably always have its defenders. Thus Origen-Rufinus, Wetstein, etc., saw here the distributive justice by which God does not exclude anyone from salvation. Ambrosiaster and St Thomas Aq. knew of an explanation which thought of the justice , (= fidelity) by which God is sure to fulfil his (Messianic) promises, cf.Romans 3:3 f. Theodoretus of Cyrus in very much the same way included a reference to the vindictive justice of God in Christ’s vicarious passion and death. Zahn ( 1910, 82-84) identified it with Christ himself, who is the incarnation of God’s justice revealed in the Gospel, cf.1 Corinthians 1:30. More opinions have been collected by * M. Stewart, Com. on Rom, 1838, 63 f.; Cornely, 68; Lagrange, RB 11 ( 1914) 321-31. Nevertheless it remains true that the more common opinion explains the ’justice of God’ in 1:17 as the justice which comes from God to man, i.e. justifying grace. So among others, Chrysostom, Augustine, Glossa Ordinaria, Estius, Cornely, Lagrange, Prat I 192 f.; Boylan. To express this explanation the WV introduced the noun ’justness’, cf. C. Lattey, WV, NT, III ( 1927) 243. Protestant exegesis prefers the term ’righteousness’ to convey the same explanation that here the ’justice of God’ is a quality of man.

The controversy between Catholic and Protestant exegesis from the time of the Reformation concerns the character of this justice—justness—righteousness. According to Catholic doctrine God not only declares man just but by that act also makes him just; cf. Council of Trent, sess VI cap 7 (Dz 799) ’The one formal cause (of our justification) is the justice of God, not that by which he himself is just, but that by which he makes us just, that namely, with which we being endowed by him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called and are just’ ( J. Waterworth, The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Engl. Tr. 1848). Protestant exegesis on the other hand argues that d??a???+??, is to be translated ’to declare just’, cf. SH 30 f., 34-9. As in court a judge pronounces a man free or guilty according to the law without intending to affect the real state of his soul, so in the process of justification God merely declares a man just, without affecting his inner state. Man’s ’righteousness’, therefore, is merely imputed and not imparted, a fiction rather than a reality. The ensuing paradox that under this supposition man’s sinful state remains, though he is declared and treated as just by God, and is expected to act accordingly, is admitted by Protestant theologians, cf. SH 36; * J. H. Holtzmann , NT Theol. II ( 1911) 137. The old Protestant position has been abandoned in modern times by Jülicher, Zahn, Lietzmann and others, cf. Lagrange, RB 11 ( 1914) 325 f. For the rejection of the Protestant explanation and doctrine by the Council of Trent see Dz 821.

’From faith to faith’: seems parallel to ’everyone that believeth’ in 16. Salvation by faith, v 16 = justness by faith, v 17. Repeating himself Paul changed salvation to justice (= justness), but he had no other word for faith. That the justness of the Gospel is to be obtained by faith, therefore, is clearly the general sense. The exact meaning of the phrase ’from faith to faith’ is, however, uncertain. One explanation understands it as a formula which could be translated ’faith all the way’, ’faith first and last’. In support of this interpretation one can quote the similar formulas in Psalms 83:8 from strength to strength; 2 Corinthians 2:16 from death to death; 3:18 from glory to glory; 4:17 beyond all measure; cf.John 1:16. The emphasis then lies on the unique and necessary position of faith in the process of Christian salvation. This would seem to suit the context best, on the supposition that 15 f. are meant to be a summary statement. A second explanation insists on the literal translation ’from faith to faith’, which suggests various degrees of faith in the process of salvation. The faith of the Gospel, then, is here described as a living faith, a faith which grows wider and stronger from day to day, cf. Cornely 71 f. A third explanation understands the phrase as meaning ’justice or justness on the basis of faith unto believers’, cf. 3:22; Galatians 3:22. So Boylan. This third explanation does not differ essentially from the first in meaning, but it would seem difficult to prove that the second ’faith’ here means all who believe.

17b. ’The just man will live by faith’: Another possible translation is ’He that is just through faith will live’; so Lietzmann, Boylan. This quotation from Habakkuk 2:4 can be taken as a third variation on the theme of the epistle, or as a third attempt as it were, to find a striking headline, 17a being the second as parallel to 16. As the shortest of the three 17b is the one most commonly remembered. St Paul’s first intention in adding it was evidently to support his thesis with a text from the Bible. For similar texts which he could have quoted cf.Genesis 15:6; Isaiah 7:9 (MT, Vg, not LXX); Mark 16:16. But Habakkuk 2:4 seems to have been a favourite proof-text as it is also quoted in Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38. In each of these quotations, however, the prophet’s words are interpreted in a typical or spiritual sense, the literal meaning being ’by faithfulness to God the just man will save his (natural) life’, scil. from death in the Babylonian captivity. ’He will live’ is the one new idea in this third summary of Paul’s thesis. In view of his line of argument in the context there can be no doubt that he is thinking of the supernatural or spiritual life of the Christian soul, as defined in Galatians 2:20; Galatians 5:25; cf.Romans 6:11, Romans 6:13; Romans 8:13; Romans 14:8. Summary. The theme of Romans 1:16-17 then can be summed up as salvation—justness of God—life on the one hand, and on the other faith each time. For the same doctrine cf.John 6:29; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8 f.

I 18-III 20 All Men need the Salvation revealed In the Gospel, because all have sinned (3:23) and therefore live under the shadow of the wrath of God—This is true of the highly civilized Greeks = Gentiles, 1:18-32, as well as of Israel, God’s chosen people, 2:1-3:20. To prove this universal need for the Christian salvation by convicting all of sin is the Apostle’s first point in the section 1:18-11:36, which is generally called the dogmatic part of the epistle.

St Paul’s way of opening the discussion by showing in the first place the need for the salvation revealed in the Gospel, 1:18-3:20, leaving the nature of that salvation to be explained later, 3:21-8:39, is throughout logical, once it is understood that such is the line of argument intended. This intention, however, a reader may easily fail to see because the Apostle commences his first point in 1:18 without any introduction or transition in our sense of these terms. His ???, ’for’ is too weak a particle, for our ears at all events, to be recognized as the beginning of a major section. If this absence of a formal transition is to be explained, one may think of an interval between the dictation of 1:8-17 and 1:18 ff. But the reason can also be found in the style of St Paul who nowhere shows great concern to obey the rules of rhetoric.

The Apostle’s actual proof of the universal need for the Christian salvation in 1:18-3:20 is based on the thesis that all men have been caught in the net of sin. But it is impossible to convince every man individually of sin. Hence the Apostle was bound to generalize, and generally speaking, the proof of all men being under the dominion of sin was not difficult. Biblical as well as pagan literature provided plenty of evidence. For similar biblical texts see Genesis 6:5; Psalms 13:1-3; Psalms 52:3; Ecclesiastes 7:21; Ecclesiastes 9:3; Isaiah 6:5; Isaiah 64:6; Wis 14:23-27; 1 John 1:8; 1 John 5:19. Similar texts from non-biblical literature can be found in Lietzmann 33, 35 f.; Deissmann (§ 845d) 315 ff.

Plan. It is customary to distinguish two major steps in the argument: (1) 1:18-32 dealing with the case of the Gentiles; (2) 2:1-3:20 dealing with the case of the Israelites. Another arrangement is: (1) 1:18-23 the case of those guilty of gross idolatry; (2) 1:24-32 the case of those guilty of obvious immorality; (3) 2:1-3:20 the case of those who condemn both idolatry and immorality and yet are guilty themselves. Of these two the former analysis is undoubtedly in closer agreement with the whole trend of the Apostle’s argument. In the world of St Paul there was a clearly marked distinction between Gentiles and Israelites, and every Israelite, worthy of the name, was proud of it. It must, however, be admitted that St Paul passes from the one to the other in 2: 1 without any of the literary devices commonly used to indicate the beginning of a new topic. Moreover, it seems he deliberately avoided referring directly by name to the Gentiles in 1:18-32, and to the Israelites in 2:1-3:20. The result is a certain vagueness as the different commentaries show. But if this indefiniteness is intended for the purpose of ensuring a better hearing in both groups, it cannot be used as an argument against the former analysis, which is followed in this commentary.

I 18-32 The Gentiles’ Need for the Salvation of the Gospel— To show the need of the pagan world for the salvation of the Gospel Paul enlarges (1) in 18-23 on the folly of pagan idolatry; (2) in 24-32 on the moral corruption of pagan life. For a more detailed analysis see * A. E. Garvie, CBi96.

18-23 The Gentiles’ Need for the Salvation of the Gospel in view of their Idolatry— The Gentiles know God, yet they do not honour him accordingly. Their worship is not religion but idolatry. Such folly, however, cannot possibly lead to the blessing of peace which every soul expects from God. On the contrary, their whole religion is patently stamped with the indelible marks of God’s curse and wrath.

The term idolatry, not actually used in the text, is here understood in its primary theological meaning, in which it stands for all misinterpretations and misrepresentations of God’s attributes, i.e. for faulty natural theology in general, cf. 1:23, 25. Only in this wide meaning can idolatry be said to be the beginning of the false and broad way that makes men sink inevitably lower and lower in their morality. And this is evidently the point which St Paul wants to make here. Further, idolatry in the restricted sense, in which it refers to various superstitions practised in connexion with actual idols, would not deserve the first place in this arraignment. For hideous and harmful as many of those superstitious practices may have been, they were hardly as hideous as the perversities referred to in 1:24-27. See also the list of sins in Galatians 5:20 where fornication ranks first and idolatry fourth. Similar attacks on pagan idolatry are frequent in the OT, especially in the prophetical and sapiential literature; cf.Exodus 20:2-6 = Deuteronomy 5:6-10 (the first of the Ten Commandments); Isaiah 44:9-20; Jeremiah 10:3 ff.; Bar 6:3, 72; Wis 13-15; Pss 95:5; 113B:4-8 = 134:5-18. For a list of patristic references see Zorell, Com. in Is, 1923, 181, note after Is 44, 23. That according to

1:18-23 the pagans’ failure to attain salvation was due in the first instance to their false religion or idolatry is a point worth emphasizing in view of so many attempts in all ages to find the root of all trouble in other spheres of human life, e.g. in material or intellectual wants. 847c

18. ’The wrath of God is revealed’ = is being revealed, is revealing itself. The revelation of the wrath of God is considered as being in progress. This follows from the present tense and the context, 1:24, 26, 28. It is God’s wrath working itself out in human history by turning the paths which men choose to get away from God into paths of depravity, degeneration and decay. The evidence in this case is the manifest folly of idolatry on the one hand, 1:22 f.; and the moral corruption of pagan life on the other, 1:24-32. ’Men that detain the truth in injustice’: can mean (1) those who hold down (= hold back) the truth through their immorality; ’such as in wickedness are repressing the truth’, WV; ’men whose wrongdoing denies his truth its full scope’ KNT; (2) those who hold fast or possess the truth but with immorality; cf. 1:32. In either case the Apostle clearly says that the religious failure of the Gentiles is due not to insufficient knowledge of God but to inefficient moral principles. The truth of which the Apostle speaks is the true knowledge of God, such as is accessible to human reason, cf. 1:19-23. 19. ’That which is known’: can also be translated, that which is knowable of God = all that which man can know about God by applying his natural faculties. ’Manifest in them’ = clear to them, in their mind and conscience. Another possible translation is, manifest among them. 20. ’The invisible things of him’ = his invisible attributes, two of which are mentioned in the same verse: his eternal power and divinity. ’Are clearly seen, being understood by means of the things created’: that from the visible things man by means of his intellectual faculties can and ought to come to know God, their creator, is common biblical doctrine, cf.Pss 8:3 f.; 18:2; 142:5 ff.; Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 45:18; Job 12:9; Job 36:24 ff.; Wis 13:1, 5; 14:22. The same was defined as dogma by the is Vatican Council, sess III, April 24th, 1870 (Dz 1785): ’. . . Ecclesia tenet et docet, Deum rerurn omnium principium et finem, naturali humanae rationis lumine e rebus creatis certo cognosci posse; invisibilia enim ipsius, a creatura mundi per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta, conspiciuntur’. For a long list of references to the same idea in Greek philosophy cf. Lietzmann. 23. ’The glory of the incorruptible God’ = of the immortal God, WV; of the imperishable God, KNT. ’Into the likeness of the image of . . . man . . . birds . . . beasts . . . reptiles’ = into images representing these creatures. Idols in human from are found in all ancient religions. The other three examples of idolatry can easily be illustrated from the religion of the Egyptians who worshipped hawk and ibis; bull and cat; and crocodile.

24-32 The Gentiles’ Need for the Salvation of the Gospel proved from the Immorality of Pagan Life— From the Gentiles’ idolatry Paul passes on to their immorality. Immorality must here be taken in the general sense of sins against the second part of the decalogue as distinguished from the sins forbidden in the first three of the Ten Commandments. The Apostle verifies his accusation of general immorality in pagan life with a list of 23 vices. They are arranged in three groups: 24 f., impurity; 26 f., unnatural vice; 28-32, a catalogue of twenty-one miscellaneous sins. Each of these groups is marked as such be the same introductory formula pa??d??e? = tradidit, Vg = God gave them up to, DV in 24 = God delivered them up to, DV in 26, 28.

24, 26, 28. ’God handed them over to sin’: the meaning of this phrase has been differently explained, cf. Poole 26 f. On the one hand, some Greek Fathers (Chrysostom, Theodoret) explained that God merely permitted men to follow their own free will which, however, when weakened by sin will invariably follow the inclination to evil. On the other hand, St Augustine coined the paraphrase, non cogendo sed deserendo = not by forcing but by abandoning them, i.e. by withholding actual grace as their deserved, punishment, cf. Aquin. ST II 1 q 79 a 3; II 2 q 94 a 3 ad 3. a 4 ad 1. With all respect for either attempt to explain how this is possible it would seem necessary to emphasize the greater importance of the fact that here St Paul clearly treats immorality as a regular consequence of idolatry, and that in this sequence he sees a divine arrangement or divine law. According to this text it is God’s order that the first commandment is the cornerstone of all religious and moral life. Without it the other commandments are a building that has no foundation. This implication is clearly stated in 28 ’inasmuch as they did not think it necessary to have (true) knowledge of God, God gave them up to a reprobate mind; and in Wis 14:27 ’the worship of abominable idols is the cause and the beginning and end of all evil’. To explain how this divine order is reconcilable with the absolute goodness of God is part of the general problem of evil rather than of the exegesis of Romans 1:24. For a special note on the relation between idolatry and immorality see Lagrange 36-41. 24 f. ’Uncleanness’ = impurity. This can refer generally speaking to any sin as staining man’s character. But the context of 24 f. makes it necessary to think here of sins against the sixth commandment = fornication. For the use of the word impurity in this sense cf. 6:19; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 4:19; Ephesians 5:3, and contrast the Christian reverence for the body in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20.26 f. single out from the sins against the sixth commandment two particularly humiliating types, namely, unnatural vice among both sexes = shameful affections, DV= shameful passions, WV. 27c. ’Receiving in themselves the retribution due to their error’: refers to the vices of 26, 27ab which are here considered not so much as sins in themselves but as punishment for the sin of idolatry (= error, DV) described in 18-23. 28. ’God gave them up to a worthless mentality’ = a regrobate mind, WV. Cf.Titus 1:15 to them that are defiled and to unbelievers, nothing is clean, but both their mind and their conscience is defiled’.

29-32. This is a summary charge of general immorality in form of a list of 21 (23 Vg) common sins. Similar lists by St Paul can be found in Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 5:10 f.; 6:9 f.; 2 Corinthians 12:20 f.; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 4:31; Ephesians 5:3-4; Colossians 3:5, Colossians 3:8;1 Timothy 1:9 f.; 2 Timothy 3:2-5; cf. also Mark 7:21. These lists may have their model in the OT, e.g.Exo_20;21:1-Exodus 23:19; Exodus 34:14-26; Lev 19; Deuteronomy 27:15-26; Os 4:1 f.; Wis 14:25 f. For a number of references to similar catalogues in classical (stoic) and patristic literature see Lietzmann 35. All attempts to discover a systematic order in Paul’s enumeration have failed. The later Greek MSS and Vg have two additions which are probably not genuine ’fornication’ in 29; and ’without fidelity’ in 31. On the whole subject see Lagrange RB 8 ( 1911) 534 ff. 29. ’Whisperers’ = tale-bearers. 32. ’And they knowing quite well God’s sentence, that all who practise such things deserve death, yet not only practise these things themselves but also applaud those who practise them’: in one respect this is but another sin to be added to the previous list, viz. the sin of applauding and encouraging wrong-doing. On the other hand, St Paul has obviously set it apart and marked it as the climax of all the depravity mentioned before. This is no exaggeration. For to abet and to applaud evil is doing the devil’s own work. The Latin text is uncertain; Vg and WV differ substantially.